Mobilicity (Trade Mark: Opposition) O-368-04: IPO 14 Dec 2004

1. Statement of grounds of opposition : scope of the attack.
2. Amendment of pleadings; inherent jurisdiction to allow.
In dealing with the opposition to this application (see BL O/367/04) the Hearing Officer questioned the scope of the objections under Section 5(2)(b), giving as his view that the pleadings did not include an attack on the Class 12 specification. He also refused to allow an amendment to the pleadings.
A TM5 was filed asking for a statement of the Hearing Officer’s grounds for holding this view and for his refusal of the amendment. This decision, which is supplementary to BL O/367/04, sets out the requisite statement.
Mr D Landau
[2004] UKIntelP o36804
Trade Marks Act 1994 5(2)(b)
See AlsoMobilicity (Trade Mark: Opposition) O-367-04 IPO 14-Dec-2004
IPO Section 3(6): – Opposition failed.
Section 5(2)(b): – Opposition failed.
Section 5(3): – Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a): – Opposition failed.
1. Admission of additional evidence. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 April 2021; Ref: scu.456166